Tennessee Proposed Amendment 1 (No Abortion)

[Ziggurat]

Not so much scared as concerned about the implications of such a law. I see it as a run around the constitution

Well, it's not. It can't be. State law cannot supersede the US constitution.

This is a direct run at the state constitution, but it is nothing more than that.

and civil rights laws that could have potentionally far reaching consequences and not just for people seeking abortions.

No. The reason that it won't have far-reaching consequences is because, for the exact same reason that this amendment itself is perfectly constitutional and not in conflict with federal law, no precedent is needed to do the same thing on any other issue. This doesn't make any of that other stuff any more likely, nor does it make it any more threatening. Because, again, none of this trumps federal law.

I think those concerns are well-founded because there are still people who think their religions give them the right to interfere with the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, but 1) they thought that before, this changes nothing, and 2) they are no less constrained by federal law in this mission than they were before either. Oh, and the impulse to control justified by a sense of moral superiority isn't limited to the religious either.

 

[Trakar]

It can be used to harrass the hell out of people who can't afford lawyers, lawsuits, and waiting years to be heard by various courts.

If you make something difficult enough for people, they'll stop doing it, even if they technically "still can". Abortion rights, voting rights, gay rights...it's how you fight those things even after you've already technically lost. Discourage, delay, obstruct. You can drag out a losing battle for generations that way.

No, you just eliminate them from doing it in legally, in hospitals, under the care of trained medical professionals and create a black market for the procedures where medical concerns are irrelevant.

 

[cwalner]

1)The federal government hasn't declared abortion a right. The Supreme Court said that the right falls under a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment and established law on privacy. There is no explicit law making abortion a right. 2)It works for many things. I have a constitutional right to free speech. But if I do this in a crowded theater and cause a panic, I will be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the Roe v Wade decision. You seem to be claiming that the decision is a broad decision on the right to privacy, but does not specifically address the concern in the case, which was abortion.

You are correct that there is no explicit law referencing abortion, but the decision means that the specific case of abortion falls within the larger range of privacy rights and is therefore a protected right.

The first sentence if the amendment is absolutely incorrect.
"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion." The job of interpreting the constitution belongs to the Supreme court, not the states. In Roe v Wade the Supreme court ruled the exact opposite of the highlighted phrase. They ruled that the constitutional rights to privacy apply to abortion. The amendment is correct in the second phrase, but that was not addressed in Roe v Wade.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the Roe v Wade decision. You seem to be claiming that the decision is a broad decision on the right to privacy, but does not specifically address the concern in the case, which was abortion.

You are correct that there is no explicit law referencing abortion, but the decision means that the specific case of abortion falls within the larger range of privacy rights and is therefore a protected right.

The first sentence if the amendment is absolutely incorrect.
"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion." The job of interpreting the constitution belongs to the Supreme court, not the states. In Roe v Wade the Supreme court ruled the exact opposite of the highlighted phrase. They ruled that the constitutional rights to privacy apply to abortion. The amendment is correct in the second phrase, but that was not addressed in Roe v Wade.

In this case, this is a proposed state amendment to the state (of Tennessee) constitution. State courts have decided that the Tennessee constitution indirectly grants a right to privacy, so this amendment's purpose is to declare, unambiguously, that regardless what may be implied elsewhere, that in relation to abortion, there will be no right of privacy.

 

[Ziggurat]

The first sentence if the amendment is absolutely incorrect.
"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion." The job of interpreting the constitution belongs to the Supreme court, not the states.

No. You are wrong. The amendment is to the state constitution, which means that "this Constitution" refers to the state constitution, not the US constitution. And it is indeed the role of the state courts, not the Supreme Court, to interpret state constitutions. If a state court declares that the state constitution provides rights that are more expansive than the US constitution provides, the Supreme Court will not contradict them. If a state court declares that the state constitution provides less rights than the US constitution, the Supreme Court still won't contradict that statement, but it will say (if necessary) that the rights granted by the US constitution still apply regardless of state constitution protection.

In Roe v Wade the Supreme court ruled the exact opposite of the highlighted phrase. They ruled that the constitutional rights to privacy apply to abortion.

And that right as it pertains to RvW derives from the US constitution, not from state constitutions. This amendment means that state courts in Tennessee cannot derive the right to an abortion from the state constitution. They will still be able to derive that right from the US constitution, but they will no longer be able to rule that this right is more expansive than federal courts rule it to be.

 

[cwalner]

In this case, this is a proposed state amendment to the state (of Tennessee) constitution. State courts have decided that the Tennessee constitution indirectly grants a right to privacy, so this amendment's purpose is to declare, unambiguously, that regardless what may be implied elsewhere, that in relation to abortion, there will be no right of privacy.

Fair enough, but does it not still run afoul of the supremacy clause of the US constitution? State bans against gay marriage (in the state constitutions) have been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts. How is this different?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Fair enough, but does it not still run afoul of the supremacy clause of the US constitution? State bans against gay marriage (in the state constitutions) have been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts. How is this different?

Even if this is the most un-(US)-constitutional state amendment possible, it would still be law for the years it would take to progress to the Supremes. However, since a nearly identical amendment exists in Texas and a few other states, and was specifically worded to pass (US) constitutional muster, I would say it will not run afoul of the US constitution.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair enough, but does it not still run afoul of the supremacy clause of the US constitution?

But this isn't a ban on anything. Subsequent state laws that restrict abortion too much could indeed run afoul of the federal right to abortion and thus be deemed unconstitutional, but this amendment itself doesn't do that. State laws cannot infringe upon individual rights granted by the US constitution, but there is no requirement that state constitutions themselves protect those rights as well.

State bans against gay marriage (in the state constitutions) have been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts. How is this different?

Because it doesn't by itself impose any restriction on abortion.

 

[Minoosh]

1)The federal government hasn't declared abortion a right.

But it has, IMO. State restrictions have frequently been struck down under the existing Roe v. Wade precedent. No matter if that's couched in the language of "right to privacy" vs. "right to abort." In practice the result is the same and I believe the justices know what they are doing.

 

[xjx388]

But it has, IMO. State restrictions have frequently been struck down under the existing Roe v. Wade precedent. No matter if that's couched in the language of "right to privacy" vs. "right to abort." In practice the result is the same and I believe the justices know what they are doing.

That "right to abort," is derived from rights granted in the Constitution. The Constitution grants every right not explicitly restricted in it. That doesn't mean that the Feds/State can't write laws restricting those rights when they meet strict scrutiny.

What exactly a "compelling government interest," is is defined by the people. If the people find protecting the unborn a compelling interest, then highly restricting abortion is the only means of doing that.

I see this Amendment as a way for Tennessee to finally get a law passed that will get out of its State courts so that it can then test the waters at SCOTUS. I expect States to continue to push the limits as long as there exists a large amount of people who find abortion abhorrent.

 

[thaiboxerken]

. I expect States to continue to push the limits as long as there exists a large amount of people who find abortion abhorrent.

I expect the same, but only because the majority in the SCOTUS are conservative hacks.

 

[Trakar]

...I expect States to continue to push the limits as long as there exists a large amount of people who find abortion abhorrent.

The overwhelming majority of people who have and perform abortions consider them to be abhorrent, just not as abhorrent as the consequences of not having an abortion, or the consequences of there not being legal, medically performed abortions for those who need/wish to have them.

There is only a small minority of extremists in the U.S. who do not want legal, medically sound and easily accessible abortions, ironically, these extremists also seem to be against BC in general and think that they alone should have the right to decide and make these decisions for others.

 

[The Greater Fool]

The overwhelming majority of people who have and perform abortions consider them to be abhorrent, just not as abhorrent as the consequences of not having an abortion, or the consequences of there not being legal, medically performed abortions for those who need/wish to have them.

There is only a small minority of extremists in the U.S. who do not want legal, medically sound and easily accessible abortions, ironically, these extremists also seem to be against BC in general and think that they alone should have the right to decide and make these decisions for others.

I would have to see some support to these assertions. I've lived in Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada my whole life until 2 years ago, and I have to say living in Tennessee has been quite a learning experience. Things that I thought were normal for the USA turned out to only be normal where I lived.

Racism is a big one, that not even Tennessee folks seem to acknowledge. While there is all sorts of integration, it's separate integration. In the company I work in, a rather forward thinking company, the races do not mingle. It's weird to see. Where interracial couples were everywhere in the west, they are extremely rare in Tennessee. Same with same sex couples. Talking about your bible group, even having bibles open on desks, is wild.

I have NO DOUBT that in Tennessee, the vast majority are against abortion, are for the death penalty, against gay anything, anti-science, and pro god.

I can't wait to get out of this state, even this region, and get back home to Sin City.

 

[Trakar]

I would have to see some support to these assertions. I've lived in Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada my whole life until 2 years ago, and I have to say living in Tennessee has been quite a learning experience. Things that I thought were normal for the USA turned out to only be normal where I lived.

Racism is a big one, that not even Tennessee folks seem to acknowledge. While there is all sorts of integration, it's separate integration. In the company I work in, a rather forward thinking company, the races do not mingle. It's weird to see. Where interracial couples were everywhere in the west, they are extremely rare in Tennessee. Same with same sex couples. Talking about your bible group, even having bibles open on desks, is wild.

I have NO DOUBT that in Tennessee, the vast majority are against abortion, are for the death penalty, against gay anything, anti-science, and pro god.

I can't wait to get out of this state, even this region, and get back home to Sin City.

I am a Catholic who spent a lot of time growing up in the deep south, later in Appalachia, went to HS in Central KS, College in NY and CA. Served in the military throughout the US (mostly in PNW) Central America, Europe and the ME. I currently live in S. central Oregon, and spend a lot of time in Sacramento, CA, and Seattle, WA. My considerations regarding Americans and abortion are consistent with my readings on the subject as well as my personal life experiences and relationships with people throughout the US.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I am a Catholic who spent a lot of time growing up in the deep south, later in Appalachia, went to HS in Central KS, College in NY and CA. Served in the military throughout the US (mostly in PNW) Central America, Europe and the ME. I currently live in S. central Oregon, and spend a lot of time in Sacramento, CA, and Seattle, WA. My considerations regarding Americans and abortion are consistent with my readings on the subject as well as my personal life experiences and relationships with people throughout the US.

Right, bald assertion based on personal experience, works for me. I guess my point is that up until two years ago, I would not have expected any part of the US to be this backward, yet here it is. I am told I live in one of the more progressive areas, which is downright scary.

I am certain that here in Tennessee, the majority you speak of is missing.

 

[Trakar]

Right, bald assertion based on personal experience, works for me. I guess my point is that up until two years ago, I would not have expected any part of the US to be this backward, yet here it is. I am told I live in one of the more progressive areas, which is downright scary.

I am certain that here in Tennessee, the majority you speak of is missing.

It isn't missing, it is simply more nuanced than sound-bytes can easily convey in order to facilitate casual discussions of the issues involved.

How many abortions occurred in Tennessee last year?

According to CDC reports there is no dramatic increase in abortion rates out in western states as compared to the bible belt. Rhetoric should always be viewed as distinct from behavior and often from belief, as well.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It isn't missing, it is simply more nuanced than sound-bytes can easily convey in order to facilitate casual discussions of the issues involved.

How many abortions occurred in Tennessee last year?

According to CDC reports there is no dramatic increase in abortion rates out in western states as compared to the bible belt. Rhetoric should always be viewed as distinct from behavior and often from belief, as well.

The rates of abortion have no relation to your claim. To refresh:

There is only a small minority of extremists in the U.S. who do not want legal, medically sound and easily accessible abortions, ironically, these extremists also seem to be against BC in general and think that they alone should have the right to decide and make these decisions for others.

The fact that anti-abortion legislation is voted on and enacted in state after state tells the story.

 

[Ziggurat]

The fact that anti-abortion legislation is voted on and enacted in state after state tells the story.

I can't speak for the raw numbers in Trakar's claim, but the situation is more complicated than that. If you want abortion limited to the first trimester, are you anti-abortion? Not if you still want it available in the first trimester. If you want abortion for minors to require parental consent or a court bypass, are you anti-abortion? Not if you want it to still be available under those circumstances.

There are a lot of limitations on abortion that a lot of people who don't want it to be outlawed still support. Just like not everyone who wants to prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors is a prohibitionist. The people who want abortion completely banned are (not surprisingly) going to also support any and all limitations that they can get, but that doesn't mean that everyone who supports a limitation also supports a ban.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I can't find opinion polls for just Tennessee, but everything I see nationally is close to 50/50 (leaning against) on abortion (againste = illegal totally or only allowed in specific cases).

Thus, like Trakar, I only have personal experience. My personal experience says the west was very open to abortion, personal rights, etc., so logic tells me there must be other states as regressive as those states are progressive. My perception is Tennessee is such a regressive state. The laws that were recently struck down in Texas have been in force in Tennessee for years.

 

[Trakar]

The fact that anti-abortion legislation is voted on and enacted in state after state tells the story.

All it tells you is that this specific singular issue is almost never on the general ballot and voted upon by the people, and the few times it is, legal, medically sound abortion rights and practices are supported and passed, generally by large popular majorities.

Instead we have candidates who bundle issues and wink and nudge the various constituencies according to what they believe those particular constituencies want to hear and then vote on individual bills in a manner that minimizes competition from within their own parties.